Hollywood’s Selectable Output Control: has it gone from FUD to dud?

It's been two years since the FCC authorized selectable output control. Where are the movies?

One year and eleven months ago, the Federal Communications Commission made a decision that Hollywood hailed as a huge breakthrough and reform groups called a setback for consumer rights. The FCC gave the studios and cooperating pay television companies permission to shut down the analog streams to HDTV home theaters. The technical term for this is "selectable output control"—until May of 2010 forbidden by the Commission; now available via waivers.

"This action is an important victory for consumers who will now have far greater access to see recent high definition movies in their homes," declared Bob Pisano, then President of the Motion Picture Association of America, shortly after the ruling. "And it is a major step forward in the development of new business models by the motion picture industry to respond to growing consumer demand."

MPAA lobbied for selectable output control for two years. The studios contended that they wanted to offer their movies to the pay-TV subscribing public on a pre-DVD release basis, but only if they could do so exclusively on the encryptable digital connection to HDTV home theaters, not the less secure analog connection.

"The Petitioners' theatrical movies are too valuable in this early distribution window to risk their exposure to unauthorized copying, redistribution or other unauthorized activities," MPAA's original petition noted. "Distribution over insecure outputs would facilitate the illegal copying and redistribution of this high value content, causing untold damage to the DVD and other 'downstream' markets." Millions of lower income families would be served by being able to view early release movies in their comfort of their homes, the argument went.

But groups like Public Knowledge and the Consumer Electronics Association pushed back that the move wouldn't be fair to tens of thousands of consumers who had bought analog only HDTVs and similar devices. CEA went so far as to contend that the change would "disable" crucial features for the video gear that millions of consumers had bought in stores. Ars itself and the National Cable and Telecommunications Association went head to head on the issue, debating the question on the op-ed pages of this site.

Yet almost two years later, there are few signs that Hollywood and the cable companies have followed up on their hard-won opportunity. To be fair, it's very difficult to know what is in the production mix, unless you are an insider. Still, our inquiries to the top studios and cable companies elicited no evidence of significant selectable output control offerings.

Nothing to report, but thanks

"We don't know offhand of any providers that are utilizing the SOC waiver for early-release movies," the NCTA's Brian Dietz told us, "so you probably will have to check with MPAA and some of the companies themselves, both cable and DIRECTV." And so we did, first talking to MPAA Vice President Howard Gantman. Gantman cited early VOD releases like Margin Call, which he acknowledged wasn't streamed on an SOC basis. Comparing notes, it was clear that he hadn't seen much development in this area, either.

"It's now up to our studios and other film distributors," Gantman noted. His and the NCTA's comments were the most forthcoming responses that we received. No studio responded to our query; a few cable companies did. "Nothing to report on this. Thanks for checking in," a representative for Comcast told us. "Let me look into this and see what I can find out," a Time Warner Cable person replied. That was the last we heard from him.

You would think that the CEA would know if something was coming down the pipe. "I'm afraid we don't have much to add at this time," a spokeperson confided.

So the big question is why, after all that sturm und drang, are the fruits of this battle so difficult to discern? We've got two tentative answers. The first is that significant opposition to digital-only early-release video on demand hasn't subsided just because the MPAA won its SOC waiver.

The second reason is broader and perhaps more important. One of the challenges that the FCC faces is that by the time it vets a proposal to regulate or deregulate some aspect of the telecommunications industry, the relevant markets and technologies have sometimes so evolved that the decision can lose its significance. This appears to be one of those cases.

Collapsed distribution

During the great debate over SOC, the movie theater operators also weighed in. The National Association of Theater Owners (NATO) represents that group—over 600 movie theater companies that collectively run about 30,000 movie screens across the United States.

The trade association's June 2008 filing tried to be diplomatic about the MPAA's proposal, but what stood out in the comment was fear. "The American cinema industry certainly does not appear to have been in the Commission's contemplation when crafting either the underlying rule or the standards and procedures for obtaining a waiver," NATO wrote, adding that the proposal contains the "alarming threat of collapsed distribution windows."

It's not hard to discern the problem from NATO's standpoint—fewer consumers paying money to attend big box theaters, and more staying home. The business model described in the MPAA's petition "could have a devastating effect on the member companies we represent as well as consumers of motion pictures," NATO's filing warned. "While NATO and its member companies generally support their studio partners on measures designed to protect intellectual property, it is not yet clear to us whether the underlying business model driving this IP-protection effort is in the public interest."

NATO may have lost this game in the FCC's court, but one Hollywood insider told us on background that the industry is still "adamantly" exerting pressure on the studios. There are a lot of "business involvements still being worked out," this person explained. Agreed, someone associated with the theaters told us. "Any attempt to close the window from the time between when the movie comes out and it goes to DVD will be opposed by the theatrical industry," he noted.

120 days later

The biggest part of this episode's irony is probably found in that DVD observation. When the MPAA first petitioned the FCC for selectable output control in May of 2008, DVDs were still a huge force in movieland. They generally came out about 120 days after a theatrical release. But a year earlier, we started noticing that DVD sales were starting to peak.

And by 2010 it was obvious that the DVD business was in real trouble as Netflix put more and more of its resources into online streaming. The SNL Kagan media tracking company, after following the fate of 415 titles, reported that wholesale DVD sales had dropped by over 40 percent from 2010—$7.97 billion in 2009 to $4.47 billion the next year. A year later, the Sandvine research company pronounced Netflix "the unquestioned king of North America's fixed access networks." Sandvine's measurements of total traffic averaged over the full day indicated that the online video provider even outpaced BitTorrent as the top data provider on North American wired systems. Netflix scored a 22.2 percent share, as opposed to BitTorrent's 21.6.

Bottom line: as the antagonists debated the selectable output control question, the Apple TV, Netflix, Hulu, Boxee revolution raced along, making the SOC debate less relevant, and early release windows more difficult to define. The FCC's Order on SOC requires any company that takes advantage of the option to file a report "two years from the first use of SOC pursuant to this waiver." It may be that no studios will file a report over the coming months.

"We do believe that SOC was significant and important," the MPAA's Howard Gantman told Ars. No question about it. The FCC clearly agreed that secure outputs trumped the options for analog only HDTV owners. But as old home pay-TV gear gets shelved and new equipment comes in, the analog numbers are doubtless dwindling. The Selectable Output Control debate is now an obscure chapter in the history of the 'Net. What remains is a troubling question—will our ability to oversee this remarkable media landscape ever keep pace with our zeal to create it anew?

Postscript: 4/2/12

After we went to press on this story, DIRECTV responded to our inquiry. "Sorry, this got buried in an avalanche of email last week," a press contact explained. "Our first run movies we offer are done this way [selectable output control]."

So that's One.

Matthew Lasar
Matt writes for Ars Technica about media/technology history, intellectual property, the FCC, or the Internet in general. He teaches United States history and politics at the University of California at Santa Cruz. Emailmatthew.lasar@arstechnica.com//Twitter@matthewlasar

69 Reader Comments

"It's not hard to discern the problem from NATO's standpoint—fewer consumers paying money to attend big box theaters, and more staying home."

Gee, I wonder why?

The local megaplex is currently showing John Carter, The Hunger Games, Journey 2, Mirror Mirror, Safe House and The Lorax. I couldn't give a crap about any one of these tweeny-bopper formulaic excuses for a movie.

Even if I did want to see one, say TTSP, I'd have to brave the lineups, the stinky food, the sticky floors, and the crowds of popcorn-throwing tweeny-boppers seeing all the other crap, as above.

The movie industry has tuned itself very carefully to a single market. The theatres are now a live-action flirting game, entertainment optional. No thanks.

If more theaters were like Alamo Drafthouse, I might go more often. However, instead I'm jammed into a slightly undersized, and usually lumpy and uncomfortable, seat surrounded by people that can't be assed to not use their cell phone.

"It's not hard to discern the problem from NATO's standpoint—fewer consumers paying money to attend big box theaters, and more staying home."

Gee, I wonder why?

The local megaplex is currently showing John Carter, The Hunger Games, Journey 2, Mirror Mirror, Safe House and The Lorax. I couldn't give a crap about any one of these tweeny-bopper formulaic excuses for a movie.

Even if I did want to see one, say TTSP, I'd have to brave the lineups, the stinky food, the sticky floors, and the crowds of popcorn-throwing tweeny-boppers seeing all the other crap, as above.

The movie industry has tuned itself very carefully to a single market. The theatres are now a live-action flirting game, entertainment optional. No thanks.

So either sell me the product in my home or, well, no thanks.

Who are nato I thought the abbreviation stood for the north atlantic treaty organisation but I fail to see their relevance to this story so I guess its the north american theatre organisation though why they came up with the same abbreviation as one of the most famous international organisations in the world I am clueless.

"It's not hard to discern the problem from NATO's standpoint—fewer consumers paying money to attend big box theaters, and more staying home."

Gee, I wonder why?

The local megaplex is currently showing John Carter, The Hunger Games, Journey 2, Mirror Mirror, Safe House and The Lorax. I couldn't give a crap about any one of these tweeny-bopper formulaic excuses for a movie.

Even if I did want to see one, say TTSP, I'd have to brave the lineups, the stinky food, the sticky floors, and the crowds of popcorn-throwing tweeny-boppers seeing all the other crap, as above.

The movie industry has tuned itself very carefully to a single market. The theatres are now a live-action flirting game, entertainment optional. No thanks.

So either sell me the product in my home or, well, no thanks.

Here-here. No matter how much I may want to see a movie I certainly won't be going opening weekend, or if it's popular enough, at anytime during the first month. I don't want to deal with loud obnoxious people who feel it's appropriate to talk or text during the film, and I certainly don't want to have to hunt for a seat amidst a sea of people only to end up with an sub-optimum seat that's off-center or unbalanced for the surround sound.

By the time I've waited for the theaters to be mostly empty for the showings I might as well wait for the Blu-Ray or just wait for it to show up on HBO. I'd rather DVR it anyway so that I can enjoy it in the privacy of my own home, be able to rewind if I miss a line, or hit pause if I need to use the restroom.

I'm not going to pay the outrageous PPV rates to watch it any sooner at home though - I used to have a Hollywood Video plan that let me check out unlimited discs (albeit 3 at a time) for $15 per month. PPV for a HD movie is often $6.99 - for a single viewing of a single movie.

New hardcover books, movies in theaters, new release Blu-Rays, etc, are all sucker bets. Eventually it will all show up in the library, in a discount bin at the flea market, or 'free' as part of a cable subscription.

I'm sure nobody will be able to leak the films to torrent sites now that the analog hole has been closed.

That's the rub, and the thing that the studios still somehow don't realize. There is no way to distribute your movie digitally and make it impossible for someone to create a copy. All DRM can and will be broken. As soon as a single DRM free copy is lose on the internet it will turn into thousands or millions of copies. All oppressive DRM does is inconvenience those who are trying to view the content legitimately.

Piracy is inevitable and isn't having the kind of negative impact on sales that the studios think it is. There have been studies showing that file sharing actually increases sales through exposing people to things they wouldn't have seen otherwise. I've bought many albums for bands that I discovered via Napster back in the file sharing heyday.

Stop trying to plug the leaks - it's impossible. Make the content easily accessible and affordably priced for consumers and they'll pay for it. Let the pirates copy and file-share - any sales lost will be made up by extra sales from people who saw it for free and liked it enough to buy a real copy, plus, you can't stop them anyway.

New hardcover books, movies in theaters, new release Blu-Rays, etc, are all sucker bets. Eventually it will all show up in the library, in a discount bin at the flea market, or 'free' as part of a cable subscription.

Actually this is my one big complaint with the impending era of all-digital distribution. Nothing ever ends up in the bargain bin. A buck here and there, but you don't see movies for purchase for a buck on iTunes.

Who are nato I thought the abbreviation stood for the north atlantic treaty organisation but I fail to see their relevance to this story so I guess its the north american theatre organisation though why they came up with the same abbreviation as one of the most famous international organisations in the world I am clueless.

New hardcover books, movies in theaters, new release Blu-Rays, etc, are all sucker bets. Eventually it will all show up in the library, in a discount bin at the flea market, or 'free' as part of a cable subscription.

Actually this is my one big complaint with the impending era of all-digital distribution. Nothing ever ends up in the bargain bin. A buck here and there, but you don't see movies for purchase for a buck on iTunes.

I'm hoping that day never comes. Generally, I won't buy something if I can't get a physical copy. I've paid $1 for a few iPhone apps, but I'll always take the free ad-supported version if available. I bought some music on iTunes but only because I received a giftcard, otherwise if I buy music it's on CD, and if I buy movies it's on DVD or Blu-Ray. I'm fine with downloading freeware, but if I pay money for software I want a physical copy.

@Maury: You missed out the fact that cinemas are TOO FUCKING LOUD. I've only been to the cinema a handful of times in the last decade for the reasons you mentioned and I had to wear earplugs every time.

Yeah, sure, once in a while I want to go out with my friends or on a date, so I keep gambling my money to see Hollywood's latest at the multiplex, and almost always come away disappointed.

The problem is, I don't think Hollywood/theatres realize I hate them.

They think they can close the holes and I will spend the money, but they are *wrong*.

I like Netflix because, in reality, this content is worth about $5 a month to me, and whatever, I'll pony up the extra.

Until 99% of movies don't turn out to be dreck, I'd rather watch a postage-stamp sized hand-held shaky-cam feed than pay their exorbitant prices. I'll buy a couple blu-rays a year for the few titles I actually really like.

And Cable TV, are you listening, cuz I'm just about ready to cancel you too.

The SNL Kagan media tracking company, after following the fate of 415 titles, reported that wholesale DVD sales had dropped by over 40 percent from 2010—$7.97 billion in 2009 to $4.47 billion the next year.

I don't know how, but I am sure it has something to do with (terrorist funding) piracy... right. How about creating content that's worth ... watching?

Good Lord, I see the "Get off my lawn" crowd is out in full force today.

Sure, many movies in the theatre are terrible; that doesn't mean there aren't still good movies being made.

Sure, theatres are expensive; that doesn't mean that it's not worthwhile as an occasional splurge.

Just relax, and realize that sometimes it's okay to make an irrational decision. Spend too much money on a mediocre movie, and just enjoy the experience. Go out with friends. Take out your significant other. Nobody ever sat on their deathbed and said "I wish I'd spent more time in my house". Going to the movies is (or should be) a social experience. Who cares if the movie sucks?

Good Lord, I see the "Get off my lawn" crowd is out in full force today.

Sure, many movies in the theatre are terrible; that doesn't mean there aren't still good movies being made.

Sure, theatres are expensive; that doesn't mean that it's not worthwhile as an occasional splurge.

Just relax, and realize that sometimes it's okay to make an irrational decision. Spend too much money on a mediocre movie, and just enjoy the experience. Go out with friends. Take out your significant other. Nobody ever sat on their deathbed and said "I wish I'd spent more time in my house". Going to the movies is (or should be) a social experience. Who cares if the movie sucks?

People like you caused the housing collapse. "Sure our house payment will balloon to $3000/month in three years. But by that time we'll totally be making more money. You only live once, right?"

And seeing a movie is NOT a social experience. So sit down, shut up, and watch the movie! Its not a freakin discussion group.

Watching a movie might not be social, but going to the cinema certainly is..

Otherwise why do I still organise dinner+movie nights out with my friends?

Do you never invite friends over to your house to watch a dvd?

Yeah. And we can talk, because we're sure we're not bothering anyone else.

And we can rewind if someone talks over a line or we miss something. And we can pause if someone needs to go to the bathroom. And we can sit on a couch, or lay in bed, or whatever is most comfortable. And we can bring our own food. And we can turn up the temperature if the place is freezing. And if someone is a d-bag, we can make them leave.

Watching a movie might not be social, but going to the cinema certainly is..

Otherwise why do I still organise dinner+movie nights out with my friends?

Do you never invite friends over to your house to watch a dvd?

Yeah. And we can talk, because we're sure we're not bothering anyone else.

And we can rewind if someone talks over a line or we miss something. And we can pause if someone needs to go to the bathroom. And we can sit on a couch, or lay in bed, or whatever is most comfortable. And we can bring our own food. And we can turn up the temperature if the place is freezing. And if someone is a d-bag, we can make them leave.

"This action is an important victory for consumers who will now have far greater access to see recent high definition movies in their homes," declared Bob Pisano, then President of the Motion Picture Association of America, shortly after the ruling.

"It's not hard to discern the problem from NATO's standpoint—fewer consumers paying money to attend big box theaters, and more staying home."

Gee, I wonder why?

The local megaplex is currently showing John Carter, The Hunger Games, Journey 2, Mirror Mirror, Safe House and The Lorax. I couldn't give a crap about any one of these tweeny-bopper formulaic excuses for a movie.

Even if I did want to see one, say TTSP, I'd have to brave the lineups, the stinky food, the sticky floors, and the crowds of popcorn-throwing tweeny-boppers seeing all the other crap, as above.

The movie industry has tuned itself very carefully to a single market. The theatres are now a live-action flirting game, entertainment optional. No thanks.

So either sell me the product in my home or, well, no thanks.

what theaters do you attend? maybe the few in my area which I attend are the exception rather than the norm, but I have yet to see "popcorn-throwing tweeny-boppers", "lineups", "stinky food", or "sticky floors" in the theater's I attend. and these are the national chain theaters.

pro-tip: if you can't stand human interaction, go to a matinee showing: no one else will be there and you'll save money.

or better, stay out of the theater so I can enjoy it when I go and I don't have to run into people like you

The way I look at theater releases is if I survived the past 30 years without seeing this movie, I can wait another 6-12 months for it to be released on disc or streaming. A $1-2 rental from Red Box or Netflix is my reasonable price point. Anything higher than what would amount to $2 per viewing (for multiple people) is not worth it, for most movies. The movies that I can see my self watching again every couple of years, I own.

Tip: Learn how to alleviate boredom without requiring the use of $100 million dollar stories.

@Maury: You missed out the fact that cinemas are TOO FUCKING LOUD. I've only been to the cinema a handful of times in the last decade for the reasons you mentioned and I had to wear earplugs every time.

I agree with you there. The cinema I visit definitely has the volume set too loud. I first noticed when I went to see The Dark Night and I have noticed it repeatedly since then.

New hardcover books, movies in theaters, new release Blu-Rays, etc, are all sucker bets. Eventually it will all show up in the library, in a discount bin at the flea market, or 'free' as part of a cable subscription.

Actually this is my one big complaint with the impending era of all-digital distribution. Nothing ever ends up in the bargain bin. A buck here and there, but you don't see movies for purchase for a buck on iTunes.

I'm hoping that day never comes. Generally, I won't buy something if I can't get a physical copy. I've paid $1 for a few iPhone apps, but I'll always take the free ad-supported version if available. I bought some music on iTunes but only because I received a giftcard, otherwise if I buy music it's on CD, and if I buy movies it's on DVD or Blu-Ray. I'm fine with downloading freeware, but if I pay money for software I want a physical copy.

Honestly, and as evidenced by the music industry, DRM is the main thing holding digital distribution back (next to horrifically slow and overpriced connections in North America, and some small sections of other first-world countries; hell, there are third world countries with better). Get rid of the DRM and you aren't losing anything by buying the digital version, since you can simply drop the US$0.25 on a DVD and burn the ISO to it. This goes for software and movies, and it's already been proven with music, via high-quality DRM-free music files on Amazon, iTunes, and others (now they just need to switch over to, at least ogg vorbis, or better yet, FLAC). Hell, I've gotten a few albums off of Amazon that even included a PDF of the insert (with lots of pics and art) and several music videos from the album (Pendulum's "Immersion" is a good example of this), and it still cost less than the physical CD would have (before gas / parking is factored!)

Sure, many movies in the theatre are terrible; that doesn't mean there aren't still good movies being made.

This isn't about movies, this is about theatres.

So about theatres; why should I pay more money to get a worse experience to get the same content?

I shouldn't. And I can't be alone in noticing that the only people over the age of 20 in the theatre are the parents shepherding kids.

fuzzytux wrote:

Going to the movies is (or should be) a social experience.

If only it were!

Don't get me wrong, for teenage kids who have their choice between being at home with the parents, going to the park, or going to the movie? Sure, that's a social experience. But it's a social experience *for kids*.

And that's the issue. The theatre industry has spent a lot of time and money developing a system aimed at people between the age of 5 and 20. I don't blame them, because it's a captive market, but it's hardly surprising that anyone outside that age group doesn't find the experience rewarding.

fuzzytux wrote:

what theaters do you attend? maybe the few in my area which I attend are the exception rather than the norm, but I have yet to see "popcorn-throwing tweeny-boppers", "lineups", "stinky food", or "sticky floors" in the theater's I attend. and these are the national chain theatres.

Next time you go to your local "national chain theatre", simply look around and estimate the average age of the people in the lobby. I suspect the answer is 16, or less.

what theaters do you attend? maybe the few in my area which I attend are the exception rather than the norm, but I have yet to see "popcorn-throwing tweeny-boppers", "lineups", "stinky food", or "sticky floors" in the theater's I attend. and these are the national chain theaters.

pro-tip: if you can't stand human interaction, go to a matinee showing: no one else will be there and you'll save money.

or better, stay out of the theater so I can enjoy it when I go and I don't have to run into people like you

My last paid theatre experience was Harry Potter 6 (on our anniversary). Halfway through the movie, my wife leaned over to me and says, "I think someone's throwing candy at me". I asked her if she wanted to leave, and she told me "No, not for the money we paid for the tickets and the sitter." I tried turning around during the bright scenes to see if I could see the culprit.

At the end of the movie, the guy behind me starts yelling at this kid, who he caught throwing candy at his wife. The kid was a fat, obnoxious punk of about 12 who tried to get the guy to fight him. His mother sat there the whole time, 1 seat away. I desperately hoped that the guy would've hit him.

We bought the DVD for far less than we paid for just the tickets, on release day (nevermind the cost of the sitter). Nobody threw candy at us. We paused for restroom breaks. We followed the story. The screen was smaller, but the hassle factor was far less.

Big theatre is at the mercy of a generation of kids who damn well deserve to get off my lawn, they're not just passing through, they're stopping to tear up big chunks of it and throwing it at the house, while their parents sit helplessly next to them, fearing DSS/DCS.

@Maury: You missed out the fact that cinemas are TOO FUCKING LOUD. I've only been to the cinema a handful of times in the last decade for the reasons you mentioned and I had to wear earplugs every time.

I agree with you there. The cinema I visit definitely has the volume set too loud. I first noticed when I went to see The Dark Night and I have noticed it repeatedly since then.

Good Lord, I see the "Get off my lawn" crowd is out in full force today.

Sure, many movies in the theatre are terrible; that doesn't mean there aren't still good movies being made.

Sure, theatres are expensive; that doesn't mean that it's not worthwhile as an occasional splurge.

Just relax, and realize that sometimes it's okay to make an irrational decision. Spend too much money on a mediocre movie, and just enjoy the experience. Go out with friends. Take out your significant other. Nobody ever sat on their deathbed and said "I wish I'd spent more time in my house". Going to the movies is (or should be) a social experience. Who cares if the movie sucks?

The cinema has to compete for our time just like anything else. It's not 1950 anymore. There are plenty of things that we can distract ourselves with. We have the entire modern era of creative recordings at our fingertips. We can pick and choose any movie we want or we could choose to be distracted by something else entirely since it's not 1950 anymore.

Some people realize this, acknowledge this, and address this challenge.

Others just try to ignore it. The MPAA belongs in the latter category.

That's the rub, and the thing that the studios still somehow don't realize. There is no way to distribute your movie digitally and make it impossible for someone to create a copy. All DRM can and will be broken. As soon as a single DRM free copy is lose on the internet it will turn into thousands or millions of copies. All oppressive DRM does is inconvenience those who are trying to view the content legitimately.

Piracy is inevitable and isn't having the kind of negative impact on sales that the studios think it is. There have been studies showing that file sharing actually increases sales through exposing people to things they wouldn't have seen otherwise. I've bought many albums for bands that I discovered via Napster back in the file sharing heyday.

Stop trying to plug the leaks - it's impossible. Make the content easily accessible and affordably priced for consumers and they'll pay for it. Let the pirates copy and file-share - any sales lost will be made up by extra sales from people who saw it for free and liked it enough to buy a real copy, plus, you can't stop them anyway.

There is data showing that sales don't necessarily decrease due to piracy there has yet to be a study showing increased sales tied to piracy.

BraveHeart, Saving Private Ryan, Black Hawk Down, to name a few were movies worth seeing on big screen and paying the premium price to see. Lately, not so much...Big movies like the Star Wars era have died, now its teeny bopper crap like Twilight that is the rage

Going to the movies is a pain in the ass anymore. They are too loud, which I think is due to management not wanting to deal with issues. Basically turn it up so every one can still hear, instead of warning someone to shut up like they used to or escorting them out of the movie if they wont stop.

As others have pointed out going to the movies is pricey anymore, it really is a better movie watching experience and much cheaper to wait for it to come out on DvD. Less stress and frustration and a lot less cash spent.

BraveHeart, Saving Private Ryan, Black Hawk Down, to name a few were movies worth seeing on big screen and paying the premium price to see. Lately, not so much...Big movies like the Star Wars era have died, now its teeny bopper crap like Twilight that is the rage

Picking out a few crappy movies from today doesn't really do anything to prove the point that all of todays movies are crap. There are generally always quite a few gems every release cycle.

That's the rub, and the thing that the studios still somehow don't realize. There is no way to distribute your movie digitally and make it impossible for someone to create a copy. All DRM can and will be broken. As soon as a single DRM free copy is lose on the internet it will turn into thousands or millions of copies. All oppressive DRM does is inconvenience those who are trying to view the content legitimately.

Piracy is inevitable and isn't having the kind of negative impact on sales that the studios think it is. There have been studies showing that file sharing actually increases sales through exposing people to things they wouldn't have seen otherwise. I've bought many albums for bands that I discovered via Napster back in the file sharing heyday.

Stop trying to plug the leaks - it's impossible. Make the content easily accessible and affordably priced for consumers and they'll pay for it. Let the pirates copy and file-share - any sales lost will be made up by extra sales from people who saw it for free and liked it enough to buy a real copy, plus, you can't stop them anyway.

Quote:

There is data showing that sales don't necessarily decrease due to piracy there has yet to be a study showing increased sales tied to piracy.

There is, however, anecdotal evidence to that effect. Just as there is anecdotal evidence of piracy and legitimate purchases coexisting. This is due to people that 1) download first and buy if it's good, and 2) buy it and pirate to get around the DRM (scenario 1 is far more common than scenario 2, as many that pirate for DRM reasons will further vote with their wallet by not putting money into the company using the DRM that necessitated the piracy in the first place).

Every time this topic comes up on Ars, there's many people stating outright that they'll preview via piracy and pay if it's good (I've done this, it's called voting with your wallet; if the movie was good, I want to encourage them to make more like it and I want the behind the scenes; if it wasn't good, I don't want them getting any money to encourage the making of more shitty movies). Just like there's many that have unopened legit copies sitting on shelves, while they play the superior pirated copy they got to bypass the DRM and other gimping that only affects people that pay and don't download.

BraveHeart, Saving Private Ryan, Black Hawk Down, to name a few were movies worth seeing on big screen and paying the premium price to see. Lately, not so much...Big movies like the Star Wars era have died, now its teeny bopper crap like Twilight that is the rage

Picking out a few crappy movies from today doesn't really do anything to prove the point that all of todays movies are crap. There are generally always quite a few gems every release cycle.

You seem to have that backwards. There's generally at least one movie that wasn't complete shit every release cycle. Meanwhile the movies he listed were extremely well received, both by critics and the general populace.

That's the rub, and the thing that the studios still somehow don't realize. There is no way to distribute your movie digitally and make it impossible for someone to create a copy. All DRM can and will be broken. As soon as a single DRM free copy is lose on the internet it will turn into thousands or millions of copies. All oppressive DRM does is inconvenience those who are trying to view the content legitimately.

Piracy is inevitable and isn't having the kind of negative impact on sales that the studios think it is. There have been studies showing that file sharing actually increases sales through exposing people to things they wouldn't have seen otherwise. I've bought many albums for bands that I discovered via Napster back in the file sharing heyday.

Stop trying to plug the leaks - it's impossible. Make the content easily accessible and affordably priced for consumers and they'll pay for it. Let the pirates copy and file-share - any sales lost will be made up by extra sales from people who saw it for free and liked it enough to buy a real copy, plus, you can't stop them anyway.

Quote:

There is data showing that sales don't necessarily decrease due to piracy there has yet to be a study showing increased sales tied to piracy.

There is, however, anecdotal evidence to that effect. Just as there is anecdotal evidence of piracy and legitimate purchases coexisting. This is due to people that 1) download first and buy if it's good, and 2) buy it and pirate to get around the DRM (scenario 1 is far more common than scenario 2, as many that pirate for DRM reasons will further vote with their wallet by not putting money into the company using the DRM that necessitated the piracy in the first place).

Every time this topic comes up on Ars, there's many people stating outright that they'll preview via piracy and pay if it's good (I've done this, it's called voting with your wallet; if the movie was good, I want to encourage them to make more like it and I want the behind the scenes; if it wasn't good, I don't want them getting any money to encourage the making of more shitty movies). Just like there's many that have unopened legit copies sitting on shelves, while they play the superior pirated copy they got to bypass the DRM and other gimping that only affects people that pay and don't download.

Arstechnica is hardly representative of a population as a whole, and just because someone says they'll do something doesn't mean they actually will. As you know circle jerk argumentation is quite common. People with the same arguments will quite often repeat what others have said if it helps furthering their position.

This is why hard data is needed not anecdoctal observation.

I was in support of the general consensus that piracy is not as harmful as its made out to be. I was simply trying to make the point that if you have proven data to state your case don't risk damaging your argument with data that can't be scientifically backed up.

I guess I hate to see exaggerated facts by all sides of the spectrum. Just because exaggeration supports your case doesn't make it any better than the exaggeration used by the other side.

Quote:

You seem to have that backwards. There's generally at least one movie that wasn't complete shit every release cycle. Meanwhile the movies he listed were extremely well received, both by critics and the general populace.

I was referring to his choice of Twilight as an example of todays movies. Using the word few was an oversight on my part.